19 July 2011 early edition/transcript/Part 13
Part 13 Q407 MENSCH: Mister Rupert Murdoch, have you considered suing Harbottle & Lewis? Have you considered suing Harbottle & Lewis? JAMES: I think- I think- Q407 MENSCH: You've said in the past — in one of your first answers to my colleague, Tom Watson — that the reason you did not do an internal investigation is that you relied on the investigation by the police, the investigation by the Press Complaints Commission and the investigation undertaken by your solicitors, Harbottle & Lewis, under whose care this enormous pile of documents was found. There is an old saying, that if you want something doing, you should do it yourself. In this case, you relied on three sets of people, all of whose investigations were severely lacking. Have you considered suing Harbottle & Lewis? JAMES: Any future legal claims or actions in any matter are a matter for the future. Really, today is about how we actually make sure that these things do not happen again. I won't comment or speculate on any future legal matters. Q408 MENSCH: Okay. The file of evidence: you were asked by my colleague Mr Farrelly whether you had read it yourself, and you said no. In the circumstances, where you have relied on other people and advisers and they have severely let your company down, do you not think, Mr Murdoch and Mr Rupert Murdoch, that you ought to take the time and read through everything in that folder personally? JAMES: For clarity, Mrs Mensch, I did say that I did read some of the contents—they were shown to me—and what I saw was sufficient to know that the right thing to do was to hand them over to the authorities to help them with their investigations. Q409 MENSCH: I understand that, but you were shown a representative sample, which can be tricky. In the circumstances and given the enormous reputational damage which I am sure you will be the first to admit has been done to News Corp, do you not think that, as senior executives of the company, you should take the time and read through the entire file, so that you are completely apprised of what happened and are not reliant on everyone else? JAMES: I am happy to do so. I think I have seen a bit of it. Q410 MENSCH: Okay. My last question is for you, Mr Rupert Murdoch. You said that your friend of 52 years I think, Les Hinton, had stepped down and resigned because he was in charge of the company at the time. In other words, he said that he was the captain of the ship, and therefore he resigned. Is it not the case though, sir, that you in fact are captain of the ship? You are the Chief Executive Officer of News Corp, the global corporation— RUPERT: Of a much bigger ship, but yes. Q411 MENSCH: It is a much bigger ship, but you are in charge of it. As you said in earlier questions, you do not regard yourself as a hands-off Chief Executive; you work 10 to 12 hours a day. This terrible thing happened on your watch. Mr Murdoch, have you considered resigning? RUPERT: No. Q412 MENSCH: Why not? RUPERT: Because I feel that people I trusted—I am not saying who, and I don't know what level—have let me down. I think that they behaved disgracefully and betrayed the company and me, and it is for them to pay. Frankly, I think that I am the best person to clean this up. MENSCH: Thank you, Mr Murdoch. As I said, I very much appreciate your immense courage in having seen this session through, despite the common assault that just happened to you. Thank you. WHITTINGDALE: I will allow Mr Watson a very brief question. Q413 WATSON: James—sorry, if I may call you James, to differentiate—when you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville e-mail, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages? JAMES: No, I was not aware of that at the time. Q414 WATSON: But you paid an astronomical sum, and there was no reason to. JAMES: There was every reason to settle the case, given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages—we had received counsel—that would be levied. Q415 WATSON: If Taylor and Clifford are prepared to release their obligation to confidentiality, will you release them from their confidentiality clause, so that we can get to the full facts of those particular cases? JAMES: I cannot comment on the Clifford matter at all. I was not involved in that matter. As to the Taylor matter, it is a confidential agreement. I do not think that it is worth exploring hypotheticals. Q416 WATSON: The facts of this case help us get to the truth. If he removes himself from an obligation, if he allows his papers to be released, will you let— JAMES: Mr Watson, it is a hypothetical scenario. I am happy to correspond with the Chairman about what specifically more you would like to know about those settlements, other than the detailed testimony I have given you today. Q417 WATSON: Why? Do you want me to carry on with a few more questions so that I can get to the end of this? WHITTINGDALE: I am getting galled. We have covered this at some considerable length. WATSON: Actually, Chairman, we have not, but I respect you. Mr Murdoch, your wife has a very good left hook. Q418 WHITTINGDALE: Mr Murdoch, you did ask if you could make a closing statement. The Committee are entirely content for you to do so. RUPERT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Members of the Committee, I would like to read a short statement now. My son and I came here with great respect for all of you, for Parliament and for the people of Britain, whom you represent. This is the most humble day of my career. After all that has happened, I know that we needed to be here today. James and I would like to say how sorry we are for what has happened, especially with regard to listening to the voicemail of victims of crime. My company has 52,000 employees. I have led it for 57 years, and I have made my share of mistakes. I have lived in many countries, employed thousands of honest and hard-working journalists. I own nearly 200 newspapers of very different sizes and have followed countless stories about people and families around the world. At no time do I remember being as sickened as when I heard what the Dowler family had to endure—which I think was last Monday week—nor do I recall being as angry as when I was told that the News of the World could have compounded their distress. I want to thank the Dowlers for graciously giving me the opportunity to apologise in person. I would like all the victims of phone hacking to know how completely and deeply sorry I am. Apologising cannot take back what has happened. Still, I want them to know the depth of my regret for the horrible invasions into their lives. I fully understand their ire, and I intend to work tirelessly to merit their forgiveness. I understand our responsibility to co-operate with today's session as well as with future inquiries. We now know that things went badly wrong at the News of the World. For a newspaper that held others to account, it failed when it came to itself. The behaviour that occurred went against everything that I stand for—and my son, too. It not only betrayed our readers and me, but also the many thousands of magnificent professionals in other divisions of our company around the world. Let me be clear in saying: invading people's privacy by listening to their voicemail is wrong; paying police officers for information is wrong. They are inconsistent with our codes of conduct and neither has any place in any part of the company that I run. But saying sorry is not enough. Things must be put right. No excuses. This is why News International is co-operating fully with the police, whose job it is to see that justice is done. It is our duty not to prejudice the outcome of the legal process. I am sure the Committee will understand this. I wish that we had managed to see and fully solve these problems much earlier. When two men were sent to prison in 2007, I thought this matter had been settled. The police ended their investigations, and I was told that News International conducted an internal review. I am confident that when James later rejoined News Corporation, he thought the case had closed, too. These are subjects you will no doubt wish to explore, and have explored today. This country has given me, our companies and our employees many opportunities. I am grateful for them. I hope our contribution to Britain will one day also be recognised. Above all, I hope that we will come to understand the wrongs of the past, prevent them from happening again and, in the years ahead, restore the nation's trust in our company and in all British journalism. I am committed to doing everything in my power to make this happen. Thank you. WHITTINGDALE: Thank you. Can I, on behalf of the Committee, thank you for giving up so much of your time this afternoon to come here. I would like to apologise again for the wholly unacceptable treatment that you received from a member of the public. RUPERT: Thank you, Mr Chairman and all Members. JAMES: Thank you, Mr Chairman. WHITTINGDALE: The Committee will now have a break of five minutes, before we move to the next part. OLBERMANN (INSET): Well there's your answer from the Conservative, John Whittingdale, the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. A five-minute break until the testimony of Rebekah Brooks, the ousted head of News International. If that was Burns and Smithers, she's Sideshow Bob, at least hair-wise. We'll see what happens to her, because they obviously, to some degree, blamed much of what was happening under their watch, the Murdochs did, on Rebekah Brooks, as generously as they refered to. There were several occasions in which she was in fact at least thrown in the direction of the bus or perhaps the bus stop.